Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 30

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 30, 2022.

Colville Ridge

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colville Ridge seems quite a bit south of Tonga Trench, compare [1] [2]. It is not properly discussed in the article. —Kusma (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with these articles is that sometimes the Tonga-Kermadec subduction zone is often split into a northern and a southern sector in a way that creates confusion and isn't geologically very meaningful. The redirects are pointing from names associated with the southern sector to articles titled from the northern sector. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally I think we should just have a stub about this one (and Havre Trough below). —Kusma (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Havre Trough

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Havre Trough seems quite a bit south of Tonga Trench, compare [3] [4]. It is not properly discussed in the article. —Kusma (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with these articles is that sometimes the Tonga-Kermadec subduction zone is often split into a northern and a southern sector in a way that creates confusion and isn't geologically very meaningful. The redirects are pointing from names associated with the southern sector to articles titled from the northern sector. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally I think we should just have a stub about this one (and Colville Ridge above). —Kusma (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Find the Saltine

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to My Growing Pains which resolves the "not mentioned" concern. -- Tavix (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. There was an article at this title for three days in 2008 prior to being WP:BLAR-ed, but the content doesn't seem like it would survive a WP:AFD. Steel1943 (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Prodd

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. Given no support for the status quo, I will retarget to bullet-shooting crossbow as the most supported alternative. -- Tavix (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, though the word "prod" is. All Most mentions of "Prodd" on Wikipedia seem to refer to the name of various fictional characters. Steel1943 (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updated rationale after realizing I was not accurate. Steel1943 (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a joke, or an accidental mis-spelilng of the word "prod". Delete. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete. This looks like a misspelling for "prod" (the bow component of a crossbow), but the OED gives "prodd" (in exactly this spelling, with quotations including from 1960) as referring to a bullet-shooting crossbow (I've just added a mention of this synonym to the article). So this is going to be a good target. I'm wondering about other uses though: not the various fictional characters (correct me if I'm wrong, but from a quick skim of the search results I don't notice any substantial subtopics that would be worth providing navigation for), but potentially other crossbow-related meanings. The 1913 edition of Webster's say "prodd" refers to a light kind of crossbow (which I reckon may be the same as the bullet-shooting crossbow above: apparently, the thing wasn't used for anything other than hunting). I'm not seeing such an entry in the newer online edition of that dictionary [5] (though I don't think I can access the unabridged version). – Uanfala (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Londongrad

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Target had been Russians in the United Kingdom, recently changed to target this new article. Term is related/mentioned in both; not sure which is a better target. MB 21:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Back in 2013 there was a clear primary topic. But the 2014 disambiguation and things that didn't exist in 2013 lead me to agree with NotReallySoroka. On the weight argument, I note that I put "Londongrad" into Google Scholar, and surprisingly, a paper on the television series (doi:10.1080/19409419.2017.1323182) was the first result. So again I agree with NotReallySoroka on there not really being a clear single target for a worldwide readership. Uncle G (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In my opinion this is the primary topic and common meaning. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Unlimited Class Wrestling Federation

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Power Broker (character). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Target is a dab page that doesn't mention anything about wrestling, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Middling-weak retarget to Power Broker (character), which mentions this fictional entity. Middling-weak (with second choice delete) because the mentions are fairly brief, and, if that article had a less bloated plot summary, it's not clear to me it would be mentioned at all. (I don't mean "it's not clear to me" as a polite way to say "I don't think that"; I genuinely can't tell, from the way the article is written, how significant this element is in-universe. 20 of the article's 22 references are primary, and it contains Fandom-y writing like Very little is known about the second version of the Power Broker other than he wears a battle suit and can project bolts of energy from his hands. This new Power Broker has apparently taken over Power Broker, Inc. This makes it an imperfect reference point to judge this redirect's appropriateness.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there has been minimal participation (and to close out the March 26th discussion page) and I'm sure we can reach consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Triangulare

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ligamentum triangulare and Spatium axillare triangulare appear to be similar topics (triangular anatomical parts) as the current topic, and I didn't see that the term is used without the preceding qualifier. Numerous in title uses in species names. Nothing against current target if those more knowledgeable of the topic know that it is used primarily without a qualifier to refer to the bones. Otherwise, might be better to delete or point to Wiktionary; SIA or dab could work, but not sure how appropriate it is as a WP:PARTIAL. Ost (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of the discussion at both mentioned triangulare pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Fascismo

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think as per WP:RLOTE, this redirect should be retargetted to Italian fascism. Veverve (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After checking on the other WP versions of the Fascism article, the word 'fascismo' is used to designate 'fascism' in Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Interlingua, Guinean, Mirandese, and Venetian. Now, I do not really know what to suggest, any comment is welcome. Veverve (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Para-fascism

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target, so I recommend deletion. Also, possibly WP:REDYES. Veverve (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Actually, the term "para-fascism" is mentioned twice in the current article, therefore the redirects are perfectly okay and should not be deleted. However, the redirects should be changed to both point to the same target #Para-fascism, and we should add an {{anchor}} to let that point to the best location within the article. Back in 2009/2010, when the two redirects were created, the article even had a long and sourced section named "Para-fascism" ([7]). I haven't tracked where that content has been moved to; if it was deleted it might be useful to readd it in some form (but that's a topic possibly to be discussed in normal article development on the article's talk page, not at RfD). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Barkburr

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete only the nominated redirect, as it is the one that was properly tagged and no one seemed to notice even after two relists. Please nominate those separately. ✗plicit 05:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target or anywhere on Wikipedia's article space. Steel1943 (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nation of Taiwan

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 10#Nation of Taiwan

Damage Over Time (Computer and video game terminology)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 8#Damage Over Time (Computer and video game terminology)

Cosmic Evolution

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 8#Cosmic Evolution

Cubit (currency)

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. MBisanz talk 19:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly surprisingly, the word "cubit" is nowhere in the target article. In fact, at this point, it seems the only Battlestar Galatic-related article which mentions "cubit" is in the episode description for the 7th episode of Caprica. It also seems as though this subject may have been mentioned on Twelve Colonies when it was an article, but it the aforementioned article was redirected as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twelve Colonies (2nd nomination). Anyways, with all this being said, one of these redirects, Cubit (currency), was WP:BLAR-ed in response to a WP:PROD. So, either "Restore Cubit (currency) and send to WP:AFD, then retarget the other redirects to Cubit (currency)" or "Delete all" due to there not being any information in the target article or any other articles. Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

MetaCorp Expressways

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

seemingly unnecessary XNR, Templatespace ineligible for CSD Happy Editing--IAmChaos 07:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:INSULT

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be re-targeted to Wikipedia:No personal attacks to match the letter-case Wikipedia:Insult. Also, as an example, the link to the redirect at Talk:Thomas Schirrmacher#Sources: step by step can be construed as a mis-link. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Spenard Builders Supply

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. MBisanz talk 19:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, I get it, SBS was owned by ProBuild for a period of time, but ProBuild was bought up by Builders FirstSource and no longer exists. SBS is not mentioned at all in either article. I think it would be possible to write an actual article on SBS and it's storied history is the main supplier of lumber and other building materials for a large portion of Alaska's history. I'd rather it was a redlink until such time as an article is created, as the redirect implies we already cover the subject, which we clearly do not. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Scrubs music

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this redirect could be ambiguous. Someone may search this term as worded, hoping to find Scrubbing (audio) or No Scrubs. Steel1943 (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Inquisitor's Squad

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 7#The Inquisitor's Squad

Ebony.(Serial).

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. signed, Rosguill talk 19:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear how/why the use of a period before and after what appears to be a disambiguator make this redirect a plausible search term. I looked through some third party sources, and am not seeing where this spelling/punctuation variation is in use. Steel1943 (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

GGAB

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 7#GGAB

PMAB

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 7#PMAB

FAWST

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 9#FAWST

COAB

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 05:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone would refer to the Coat of arms of Antigua and Barbuda as "COAB". Some expansions of the acronym COAB are listed here. Peter Ormond 💬 04:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Antigua-Barbuda-Redonda

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 7#Antigua-Barbuda-Redonda

Twin-island state

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 05:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Twin-island state" can also mean Trinidad and Tobago or Saint Kitts and Nevis or São Tomé and Príncipe. Peter Ormond 💬 04:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

North East Indian cuisine

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 8#North East Indian cuisine

2012 film

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 13#2012 film

2002 film

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 13#2002 film

Wikipedia:NDA

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Wikipedia:Access to nonpublic information. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose redirect to Wikipedia:Access to nonpublic information

Reason: NDA stands for "non-disclosure agreement" which people looking for information on the NDAs required to, say, become a CheckUser or Oversighter (Suppressor) are probably going to use. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 21:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_30&oldid=1087860623"